BOSTON JIHADIST DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV GETS THE DEATH SENTENCE

The verdict is in for the savage who murdered and maimed people at Boston's marathon: he gets the poison syringe:

BOSTON— Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a former college student who along with his brother planted twin bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, was sentenced to death Friday for his role in the 2013 attacks that killed three people

The jury deliberated for more than 14 hours before reaching its decision.

Standing at the defense counsel’s table between his lawyers, Mr. Tsarnaev showed no emotion as the decision was read. Onlookers in the courtroom included the parents of 8-year-old Martin Richard, the youngest victim.

The grim-faced defense team left the courthouse in silence and declined to answer questions. Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz said the trial showed that “we are not intimidated by acts of terror or radical ideals.”

Tsarnaev fully deserves what he'll hopefully get. He should get worse than poison - a shotgun blast that disintegrates his head at close range would be an even better way to get rid of him.

STABBING ATTACK THWARTED IN SILWAN NEIGHBORHOOD

Another terrorist attack that was stopped:

The Shin Bet and Jerusalem Police prevented a stabbing attack on a Jewish security guard in east Jerusalem, according to a statement by the security agency on Thursday.

The Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) said that earlier this month they and the Jerusalem Police arrested three suspects – Muhammad Nasser Ahmed Abassi, 21, Murad Muhammad Uda Kustiro, 23, and a minor – on suspicion of plotting an attack on security guards stationed outside of Beit Ovadia, a Jewish building in the mainly Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan.

The Shin Bet said Abassi confessed to having the minor carry out surveillance on the house ahead of a planned shooting attack. Abassi later decided that a stabbing attack had more potential to work, so he acquired a knife and axe and stashed them at his house and his grandfather’s house, the Shin Bet said.

He also admitted to making pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails which were used against Israeli police during recent rioting in east Jerusalem.

According to the Shin Bet, Abassi is affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, while the other two are not linked to any group.

It doesn't make much difference whether they're part of a terrorist cell or not. The problem is that the criminals worship the Koran.

HARRY MARYLES ADDS INSULT TO INJURY

I once thought Chicago-based rabbi Harry Maryles was a pretty good blogger on many pressing issues. There were some points on which I disagreed with him, but overall, he did seem to be on the mark with many topics.

Unfortunately, he's now thrown away much of what I would like to appreciate about him for the sake of attacking Pamela Geller (and by extension, Robert Spencer), by accusing her of being an inciter, and otherwise letting jihadists off the hook:

I don’t know whether Pamela Geller is a fool or just plain evil. But one thing she is for sure is wrong. And I am outraged by her tactics.

But you're not outraged at the twosome who tried to murder people at the convention, Maryles?

There are few rational people in the world that justify what these 2 terrorists tried to do. Including the vast majority of Muslims. They were unquestioningly evil - despite the fact that they believed they were defending the honor of Islam. But does that make what Pamela Geller did OK? Not in my view.

Uh oh. Here's where he goes soft as mud on Muslims as a whole, and ignores what's said about how there may be moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam. It gets worse:

The attack was precipitated by Ms. Geller and friends by basically spitting in the face of Islam and calling it free speech. She may have that right. Free speech is protected in this country no matter how hateful it is. Unless it can cause harm to the public. Like yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater when there is no actual fire. The question is, was that the case here? Was what Ms. Geller did here comparable to that?

Gee, what about all the times when Islamofascists did worse than spit, by murdering Jews in the name of the Koran? Maryles misses the point by galaxies - Geller and company were trying to send a message that they will not let Islamic violence silence or intimidate free people. They were also running the contest as a special form of support for those murdered in the name of jihad, like Charlie Hebdo's contributors. And instead of appreciating the idea they had in mind, all he can do is say just what the left would want to hear? Maryles is one of the dumbest people I've ever known.

The event she and others hosted was a contest to see who would create the best caricature of the Islam’s founder, Muhammad. Drawing images of Muhammad is at the very least frowned upon if not outright forbidden by Islamic law. And if it is done in any kind for disrespectful way, it is a cause of great outrage.

Which will inspire a few of the Jihadists among them to try and murder those who do . By now that is no secret. That’s what precipitated the massacre at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo last January in France. Over the years they had published a series of embarrassing caricatures of Muhammad. And they were not the first to experience terror as the result of insulting Islam’s founder.

Excuse me? Here's where a flaw turns up: EVERY way Muhammed were to be drawn is considered disrespectful to Muslims. In the mind of an Islamofascist, drawing Muhammed at all is haram (taboo). The most telling sign Maryles is badly informed (and uses the wrong booleans - "for" instead of "of"). And he doesn't make it any better when he dismisses Charlie Hebdo's caricatures as mere embarrassments.

What possible motive could she have had in holding a competition like this? Protecting free speech? Free speech was doing just fine before she started disparaging other religions. By holding this competition she is perceived even by decent Muslims to be spitting in their face! It is pure folly to do that, not only because you are daring extremists to massacre you, your fellow organizers and participants... but because it is reprehensible to publicly disparage the icons of other religions. It spreads hate and generates retaliation from Jihadists all too eager exact revenge. Which is what happened at Charlie Hebdo in France. And was attempted in Garland, Texas.

Oh really, is it? You have cases of gays and lesbians suing Christian businesses for daring to object to their lifestyle and mentality, while otherwise ignoring Muslim businesses for the same. And, you have CAIR suing writers for exposing their own evil deeds. What else doesn't Maryles understand in his poor education? What he's doing is just what evil misogynists who believe women are to blame for sexual assault because of how they dress or look. In fact, one of the commenters asked:

Here's a similar question:

Suppose signs were posted in a predominantly muslim neighborhood in America that warned that any woman wearing shorts or a tank-top would be subject to beating. Suppose that women have been beaten and murdered when they ignored the signs. Would not the proper response to that be to keep organizing marches through the town with women wearing shorts? Until it became clear that it was safe for them to do it even when alone? Would you consider it wrong to organize that march?

Set aside the issue of whether Geller is self-serving, unlikable or unintelligent, and tell me whether you would call the 'women in shorts' marches evil, despicable, and reprehensible, or whether the marches would be exactly what's needed.

Yes, I want to know what this two-face would say if women were to protest a horrific murder/rape with a special march through a Muslim neighborhood. Maryles is the same man who allegedly finds Haredi extremism reprehensible, but his comments about Geller's contest put that in doubt.

Clifford May had a much better argument than Maryles, and said:

There can be no exceptions to protect the sensibilities of those perceived as "marginalized, ‎embattled, and victimized," nor to mollify Islamic State terrorists -- who have issued a ‎communiqué threatening to "slaughter" Geller -- and such characters as Anjem Choudary, ‎the British Muslim activist who on television last week asserted that by now everyone should ‎understand that drawing Muhammad "carries the death penalty in Islam." His further ‎implication: Islamic law now applies to everyone everywhere. Obey or die.‎

Is that what Maryles wants people to think he favors? For now, I've concluded that most of his arguments on extremism in the Haredi world are unconvincing, and most of his tone way too soft.

TERROR ARRESTS IN BRITAIN CONTINUE TO SURGE

SINCE 2013 THE PROBLEM HAS GOTTEN WORSE.

THE POLICE HAVE NEVER BEEN SO BUSY WITH REGARD TO TERROR.

THE GLOBAL SITUATION IS THE SAME.

WORSE THAN EVER.

THIS IS THE RESULT OF OBAMA'S POLICIES.

NOTHING WILL IMPROVE UNTIL OBAMA IS GONE AND THERE NEW LEADERSHIP HERE AND IN FRANCE.

IF MARINE LE PEN IS ELECTED, AND IF GREECE EXITS THE EU AND IF THE UK VOTES TO LEAVE THE EU, THEN THIS WILL LEAD TO THE DEMISE OF THE EU AND END THEIR SUICIDAL OPEN BORDERS POLICIES.

AND MAYBE THEN, EUROPE AND THE USA CAN RELAUNCH A MORE ROBUST AND SUCCESSFUL COUNTERATTACK.

What should be taboo in the USA - and what shouldn't be...

ta-boo: adjective - something prohibited or restricted by social custom.

In a constitutional republic such as the USA, abridging free speech should always be taboo and insulting a "religion" should never be taboo.

The taboos of religions whose basic tenets are anathema to democracy and secularism, such as Islam - should never be respected - least of all when they use threats of violence to try to enforce their taboos - as islamists have done and continue to do daily.

Respecting islam's taboos because of threats by islamists only encourages them to threaten us more as it rewards their threats.

Appeasing them by attacking people, like Geller, who don't respect their taboos also encourages the islamists to threaten us more.

Nobody has the right to take away our liberty or our lives.

I won't surrender mine.

Please don't surrender yours - for any reason, and by implication say I should too.

Our innate and G-d-given liberty - for centuries limited by tyranny - was recovered for us only by the enormous sacrifices of millions who lived and fought before we were ever born.

It is our sacred duty to defend these rights and their sacrifices against all creeds and tyrants who would have us live in chains.

Today, the chief enemies of liberty are islamism and leftism - ideologies that often work together.

PC and islamism both seek to limit our liberty, and both must be fought.

When confronted by either, never give in.

Fight them in behalf of all who died so that we might enjoy our liberty, and for all our children and children's children who will continue enjoy it in the days to come only if we defend it here and now.

HAS POPE FRANCIS JUST SEALED THE VATICAN'S FATE?

AP:

The Vatican officially recognized the state of Palestine in a new treaty finalized Wednesday, immediately sparking Israeli ire and accusations that the move hurt peace prospects. The treaty, which concerns the activities of the Catholic Church in Palestinian territory, is both deeply symbolic and makes explicit that the Holy See has switched its diplomatic recognition from the Palestine Liberation Organization to the state of Palestine. The Vatican had welcomed the decision by the U.N. General Assembly in 2012 to recognize a Palestinian state and had referred to the Palestine state since. But the treaty is the first legal document negotiated between the Holy See and the Palestinian state, giving the Vatican's former signs of recognition an unambiguous confirmation in a formal, bilateral treaty. "Yes, it's a recognition that the state exists," said the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi. 

The Israeli Foreign Ministry said it was "disappointed."
"This move does not promote the peace process and distances the Palestinian leadership from returning to direct and bilateral negotiations," the ministry said in a text message.

THE BIBLE: GENESIS 12:3 -

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you, I will curse. 

THE POPE - WHO BELIEVES IN THE BIBLE AND THAT THE WORD OF THE LORD IS TRUE - HAS JUST BROUGHT THE DISPLEASURE OF THE LORD UPON HIS HOUSE.

PERHAPS IT WILL COME VIA ISIS.... THEY HAVE THREATENED AS MUCH.

Avi Green adds:

It looks like the Vatican and its current Pope could not be trusted to realize they'll only be encouraging Islamofascists with their dhimmi steps. And all the while they fail epically to speak in clear defense of Christians in Muslim countries who're now being persecuted by the ummah. I can't respect Pope Francis if this is how he's going to conduct his business. No wonder faith in Christianity may be fading among various world publics disillusioned when they realize the leaders are weaklings. The dhimmis are only causing discouragement.

JIHADISTS ARE THE OBSCENITY, NOT PAMELA GELLER

Peter Wehner at Commentary comes to Geller's defense over the Muhammed cartoon contest, and notes how horrific it is that a blame-the-victim narrative is being employed:

The storyline isn’t about the rise of ISIS-inspired terrorists on the American homeland; it’s on Ms. Geller’s provocations. One cannot help but sense in the coverage that many journalists believe Ms. Geller had this coming. After all, she was using “fighting words” and “hate speech.” The logic of Ms. Geller’s critics goes like this: Ms. Geller was doing something she knew would provoke a violent response and therefore she (the intended victim) is the person to blame. Women are unfortunately all too familiar with this kind of ugly storyline. [...]

I find it rather stunning that those whose profession depends on freedom of speech are so eager to cater to those who are undermining it. The thinking of many in the political class seems to be that if cartoons are deemed offensive and off limits by jihadists, then the cartoons are offensive and off limits. Ms. Geller, however imperfect she may be, decided she wouldn’t go along with this game. She wouldn’t play by jihadi rules. If the demand by Islamists is you can’t draw cartoons of Muhammed, her response was: Oh yes we can. Certainly in America we can.

And those who really, truly do value free speech would do well to defend the right to draw pictures of figures who're supposedly off limits for illustration. The mindset now being employed by the MSM is the same kind used to blame rape victims by claiming they had it coming because they were beautiful and/or how they dress, which is not true at all.

GERMANY SELLS MORE SUBS TO ISRAEL AS IRAN RATCHETS UP THEIR GENOCIDAL RHETORIC

IN PART BECAUSE OF THIS RHETORIC FROM IRAN, GERMANY DID THIS.

MEANWHILE, OBAMA ENABLES IRAN'S NUKE PROGRAM...

UH-OH: USA HOUSING MARKET CONTINUES TO SLOW, SHRINK

HOUSING USED TO BE A MAJOR SOURCE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH FOR THE WHOLE USA ECONOMY.

IT'S STILL NOT DOING VERY WELL.

MEANWHILE, IN EUROPE, GERMANY'S ECONOMY IS SLOWING, AND THE REST OF EUROPE IS BARELY EKING OUT ANY GROWTH.

I'D GUESS WE ARE HEADED FOR A GLOBAL RECESSION.

DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMAN MAKES A VEILED THREAT TO GOP: "NICE COUNTRY YOU GOT THERE...."

THIS IS WHY ANN COULTER WROTE A BOOK CALLED Demonic, how the liberal mob is endangering  America:

WASHINGTON FREE BEACON:

Dem Rep: GOP’s Budget Could ‘Lead to Violence,’ People Rising Up Like in Baltimore

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS THE PARTY OF THE MOB.

GLOBAL BOND SELL-OFF DRIVES EUROPEAN STOCK MARKETS DOWN

REUTERS:  

European shares fell sharply in morning trading on Tuesday as a sell-off in global bond markets led investors to trim their risk exposure.The pan-European FTSEurofirst 300 index was down 1.6 percent at 1,570.88 points by 0836 GMT and Germany's DAX fell 1.8 percent, with investors trimming their trading equity positions following a sharp rise in bond yields.
"It's a matter of concern for the market," Ian Richards, global head of equities strategy at Exane BNP Paribas, said.
"When any particular asset class goes through periods of extreme volatility in a short space of time, people feel the pressure to take their risk exposure lower. Of course, there is an overlap from what may be a bond market event into the equity space."
German Bund yields rose as a global sell-off in bond markets resumed. The sell-off has puzzled investors and analysts since the end of April. Traders have blamed it on a rise in inflation expectations, higher oil prices, and restricted liquidity, but the full picture is far from clear.
"Should the weakness in bonds and emerging market currencies continue to intensify in the days ahead, it will be just a matter of time till major stock markets around the world will come under additional pressure also," said Markus Huber, senior analyst at Peregrine & Black.

WHAT CANNOT GO ON FOREVER WON'T.

THE GLOBAL STOCK MARKETS RISE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF CENTRAL BANK INTERVENTIONS, AND NOT BASIC ECONOMIC GROWTH.

THIS GLOBAL BOND SELL-OFF COULD SIGNAL THAT THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END...

SARA NETANYAHU FIGHTS BACK AGAINST CORRUPT EX-EMPLOYEE

The prime minister's wife has gone to court to testify against Meni Naftali, the former employee at the PM's residence who betrayed her, backed by a hostile press:

Sara Netanyahu, the prime minister’s wife, claimed in court Sunday that the publisher of the Yedioth Ahronoth daily was backing a former caretaker at the Prime Minister’s Residence who is alleging that she mistreated employees.

“There’s a very strong media figure behind Menny Naftali,” Sara Netanyahu said — referring to Arnon Moses of Yedioth — when she took the stand to answer allegations made by Menny Naftali, the former caretaker, in a NIS 1 million ($258,000) civil suit.

“For over a year, I’ve been dragged through the mud publicly by Menny Naftali with support from the media,” Netanyahu claimed.

Asked about Moses later in the hearing, she said, “He’s like [the character in] Harry Potter, he who cannot be named,” referring to the villain Lord Voldemort in the popular book series.

Sunday’s hearing marks the first time Netanyahu has publicly addressed Naftali’s allegations. She said he was seeking to extort money from the state’s coffers.

Netanyahu also said that for the last 18 months Naftali “threatened and blackmailed” the Prime Minister’s Office and claimed she had text messages to prove it.

She told the court that while he was working for her family, Naftali often spoke crudely and was physically abusive to her children and their friends when they visited. She said that a fear of negative media attention prevented her from firing him earlier.

So in earlier times, he counted on her reluctance to stand up to him because she was afraid of media backlash over peanuts. He is truly disgusting, and so too is the Yediot publisher's willingness to back him. I hope she wins this lawsuit and makes clear to the leftist screwballs that this cannot go on. More about this case over here.

DICK CHENEY USED SECRET PERSONAL EMAIL SERVER AND DELETED 30,000 EMAILS...

What if Cheney did anything Hillary did?

If Cheney used a private server, deleted 30,000 emails claiming they were private, did nothing while an ambassador was murdered by terrorists except lie about it, and if his wife's charity  took $145 million from a company doing business with the federal government then there qould bw incessant demanda from the media for an FBI investigation and the appointment of a special prosecutor.

But Hillary gets a pass from the left and the mass media they control.

She and Bill get a pass because the left has only one principle:

Get and maintain power in order to loot the nation and divvy up the spoils with members of the machine.

Whoever presents themselves as someone likely to be able to help achieve this is absolved in advance and after the fact for any and all crimes.

Only turning against the machine is unforgivable.

COMIC BOOK BUFFS RIDICULE THE SPLC'S ATTACK ON BOSCH FAWSTIN

Front Page Magazine says the SPLC's denounced cartoonist Bosch Fawstin as a "hate groupie" because of the anti-Muhammed cartoons he's drawn. But he's not phased:

When reached by phone on Monday night, Fawstin said Sunday's incident made him fear for his safety, but he would continue his work.

"It definitely is concerning. You do your work and people out there want to kill you for it," he said. "I understand the threat, but I'm not going to be cowed by it. I still intend to go up there and I still intend to speak out."

Fawstin, who said he is atheist, laughed when asked about the law center's report: "So they want to put a cartoonist on there who doesn't act out violently? Go for it."

That's the problem with the SPLC today - all they worry about is non-violent people, and come off sounding more like crime supporters than people truly concerned about making this a civilized planet. Over at the Outhousers, one of the people writing about this said that while he doesn't side with Fawstin's view, there are still some interesting queries to make, like:

If Fawstin belongs on the list of hate groups, does someone like Frank Miller, who wrote a similarly-themed (but less well-received) comic about killing Muslims called “Holy Terror,” belong there as well?

If so, what does that mean for major Hollywood movie studios promoting movies based on his work, such as the upcoming Superman v. Batman: Dawn of Justice, set to launch a multi-movie franchise?

Or for that matter, for DC Comics, who promoted Miller’s return to writing Batman comics as a major event just last month?

What about Charlie Hebdo, which the world was pretty much unanimously celebrating in January after an attack on their building killed several cartoonists and editors, and whose defiant “Je Suis Charlie” slogan can still be readily be found on t-shirts and social media avatars.

How do Charlie Hebdo’s anti-Islam cartoons and drawings of Muhammad differ from Fawstin’s?

Those are good questions to ask (but which I'm sure the SPLC won't answer), to which I can add at least one more: does the SPLC think Will Eisner belongs there too because of his last graphic novel, The Plot? As a matter of fact, they might, but because of the high regard he had when he was still alive, that's probably why they'd leave him alone, though I'm sure they'd villify him if they thought they could. Some of the commentors at CBR also criticized the SPLC's poor conduct. For example:

Watching the Southern Poverty Law Center go from a group that fought the Klan to a group that attacks artists is just sad.

And that's why they're an irrelevancy today. Another said:

SPLC are some of the biggest haters around, and like many such groups, they’re total hypocrites.

For example, I wonder how many blasphemous depictions of Jesus you’d have to produce to get on their list.

What do you think? I’m guessing the number is somewhere in the quadrillions.

Yes, they're just hypocritical apologists, and nobody should donate money to them.

It's pretty surprising that DC still maintains a respectable relationship with Miller, because they have quite a few people working there now who'd surely want to ostracize him for his changed views, and there's no chance they'd ever let him write them a Batman story even remotely similar to what he wrote in Holy Terror. For all we know, he could end up being blacklisted for real one day, and that would be bad, although I will say that with the way DC's going now, he really doesn't need to do them favors by lending them his talents that could be put to better use at smaller companies like Dark Horse.

I'm glad to see that Fawstin's not letting the SPLC get him down. It's also flattering to learn Jim Shooter's one the people supporting his work.

BRITISH ELECTION PROVES THEY DESPERATELY NEED ELECTORAL REFORM

UKIP WON 13% OF THE VOTE -2\3rd's MORE THAN THE SNP, BUT ENDED UP WITH 1/56th AS MANY MP'S.

THIS IS BECAUSE THE BRITS DO NOT HAVE RUNOFFS IF THE WINNER HAS LESS THAN 50%, AND MOST OF THE SEATS ARE WON WITH LESS THAN 40%.

UKIP FINISHED THIRD OVERALL IN THE TOTAL VOTE COUNT GAINING MANY MORE VOTES THAN THE SNP AND LIB-DEMS COMBINED, BUT ENDED UP WITH ONLY ONE SEAT.

THIS MEANS UKIP'S 4 MILLION SUPPORTERS HAVE VIRTUALLY NO VOICE IN PARLIAMENT DESPITE BEING EXTREMELY POPULAR AND VOICING SUPPORT FOR POSITIONS NO OTHER PARTY SUPPORTS.

THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO DISENFRANCHISING MILLIONS OF BRITISH VOTERS AND IT MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

IT'S SIMPLE TO FIX:

ADJUST ELECTORAL LAW TO REQUIRE AT LEAST 45% FOR THE WINNER, AND IF NO ONE GETS 45%, THEN HAVE A RUNOFF IN 3 WEEKS BETWEEN THE TOP TWO FINISHERS.

UKIP CAME IN SECOND IN MANY DOZENS OF CONTESTS AND SURELY MIGHT HAVE WON MAY OF THEM IF THEY HAD A RUNOFF SYSTEM LIKE THIS - WHICH MANY COUNTRIES AND STATES ALREADY HAVE.

SOME PEOPLE WOULD PREFER A PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM, SUCH AS IN ISRAEL.

EACH PARTY GETS A NUMBER OF SEATS PROPORTIONAL TO THEIR OVERALL TOTAL.

IN THIS SYSTEM UKIP WOULD HAVE WON 80 SEATS - MORE THAN THE LIB-DEMS AND THE SNP COMBINED.

MORE HERE:

http://infographics.economist.com/2015/general_election_proportional/?n=&w=595

EITHER WAY, BRITAIN WOULD HAVE A PARLIAMENT THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE.

I THINK MOST BRITS FEEL THAT THE TIME HAS COME FOR REFORM.

IF IT DOES, THEN ELECTORAL REFORM WOULD BE ONE OF UKIP'S GREAT CONTRIBUTIONS TO BRITAIN - ALONG WITH FINALLY GETTING THE BRITISH A REFERENDUM ON EU MEMBERSHIP.

AND ANOTHER THING: FARAGE LOST HIS CONTEST AND RESIGNED AS PARTY LEADER. HE REMAINS AN MEP.

FARAGE LOST BECAUSE HE HAD TO RUN AGAINST THE ENTIRE NATIONAL MEDIA, AND BECAUSE THE TORIES SHREWDLY RAN A FORMER UKIP MEMBER AGAINST HIM.

C'EST LA VIE. FARAGE DESERVES A REST. I HOPE WE HAVE NOT HEARD THE LAST FROM HIM.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

IF THE TORIES RENEG ON THE REFERENDUM PROMISE, THEN AN ANTI-EU PARTY WILL WIN THE NEXT ELECTION.

THE SOONER THEY HOLD IT THE BETTER, BUT I SUSPECT CAMERON WILL WAIT UNTIL GREECE LEAVES THE EU, AND THE ESS HITS THE EFF.

FINAL NOTE:

IF LABOR REFORMS ITSELF INTO AN ANTI-EU AND ANTI-IMMIGRANT PARTY, THEN THEY COULD BECOME THE NEXT MAJORITY PARTY.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY NEED TO BECOME LESS "PROGRESSIVE" AND MORE PRO-WORKING CLASS.

I DOUBT THEY WILL DO THIS; THEIR LEADERSHIP IS MADE UP OF IDEOLOGICAL LEFTISTS, NOT PRAGMATIC BLAIRITES.

FBI WARNED TEXAS POLICE ABOUT JIHADISTS BEFORE CARTOONING CONTEST TOOK PLACE

It looks like the FBI deserves some congratulations for being on the alert too (Hat tip: Accuracy in Media):

The Federal Bureau of Investigation warned police in Garland, Texas, about three hours before a shooting at an exhibit of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad that a gunman who launched a failed attack was interested in the event, FBI Director James Comey said on Thursday.

The FBI issued a bulletin to the police department saying Elton Simpson had an interest in the event held in the Dallas suburb but gave no indication that he planned an attack, Comey told reporters in Washington, according to an FBI spokesman.

It's good they were keeping track of the danger lurking. We must take our hats off to the brave FBI officials who offered great help.

NOT EVERYONE AT FOX NEWS SUPPORTS FREE SPEECH AS WELL AS THEY COULD

The Wash. Examiner (via Accuracy in Media) lets everyone know why it's a serious mistake to think everybody at Fox is a saint:

Fox News has fallen somewhere in the middle, with several hosts and contributors stressing this week the importance of free speech — so long as it's safe.

"The American Freedom Defense Initiative spurred a violent incident," longtime host Bill O'Reilly alleged Tuesday. "Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid…It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad."

He added that free speech is indeed important, but that those principles are "not in play" in the AFDI situation. Further, O'Reilly said, "Just because you can say it doesn't mean you should say it…It is stupid. It accomplishes nothing."

Conservative radio host and Fox contributor Laura Ingraham agreed, saying Tuesday that everyone should avoid being "unnecessarily" offensive.

"It is not beneficial to us as Americans to criticize an entire faith, and what was done at this convention doesn't accomplish anything," she said. "There are a lot of things that we can say, that we have a right to say, that we shouldn't say."

Referring to Chris Ofili's infamous "The Holy Virgin Mary," a likeness of Jesus' mother fashioned out of dung, Ingraham said she supported the artist's right to free expression — but she maintained it's unnecessarily stupid and offensive.

"We shouldn't unnecessarily insult people, personal attacks," she said, adding of the AFDI event that, "It does not…accomplish anything [and] it could make things worse for us."

O'Reilly concurred, saying that his position is "what is best for the country" and not "emotional."

Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum expressed on both television and social media that she disapproved of AFDI and its Muhammad contest.

"Don't stoop to [radical Islamists'] level," she said on Twitter in reference to the controversial art exhibit, adding later, "Just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."

Referring to Geller's many critics, McCallum explained the arguments against AFDI, saying in an interview with the group's founder that, "If you want to make a difference, you do it in a Christian way, you don't do it in a crass way by insulting someone's religion."

If that's supposed to mean by being a coward and remaining quiet, then somebody's insulted Christians at that station. Mainly Christians who're now being persecuted in Muslim lands. All this ghastly condemnation of Pamela Geller's group does is prove why Fox isn't much different from their leftist counterparts. Their approach predictably fails to condemn any and all Islamists who encourage these attacks. I'm sure none of this is new to Geller though, since she has spoken against Fox in the past.

Chaplinsky Vs. New Hampshire: The Real Story Behind The "Fighting Words" Doctrine As Limit To Freedom of Speech

The other day, Chris Cuomo declared Pamela Geller's Mohammed Cartoon Contest to be a violation of the "Fighting Words Doctrine", The "Fighting Words Doctrine is a limitation set against the Freedom of Speech by a Supreme Court case called Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire.

Frankly, I don't hear the "Fighting Words Doctrine" being resorted to as a legitimate limit on Freedom of Speech by any, other than Chris Cuomo. However, if it were, I wonder if anyone would take it seriously if they knew the real story.

First, the story as it is usually told:

In late November 1941, Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, was using the public sidewalk as a pulpit in downtown Rochester, passing out pamphlets and calling organized religion a "racket." 

After a large crowd had begun blocking the roads and generally causing a scene, a police officer removed Chaplinsky to take him to police headquarters. 

Upon seeing the town marshal (who had returned to the scene after warning Chaplinsky earlier to keep it down and avoid causing a commotion), Chaplinsky attacked the marshal verbally. He was then arrested. 

The complaint against Chaplinsky stated that he shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist". 

Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the deity. For this, he was charged and convicted under a New Hampshire statute preventing intentionally offensive speech being directed at others in a public place. Under New Hampshire's Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place ... or to call him by an offensive or derisive name." 

Chaplinsky appealed the fine he was assessed, claiming that the law was "vague" and that it infringed upon his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech.

Even this story, by itself, is offensive, idiotic and downright absurd, given the fact that the First Amendment declares, simply, that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the Freedom of Speech."

Yes, that's right, NO LAW ABRIDGING FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

And yet, somehow, Chaplinsky was arrested for calling a Policeman a "racketeer" and a "fascist". And then, the Supreme Court decided that Walter Chaplinsky had violated his own Constitutional Right to Free Speech, by using "fighting words".

Additionally, the charge was that he used these words "in a public place." Somehow the fact that he chose to utter words which were offensive to a policeman, in a public place, was considered "incitement."

Now, I could understand if the Policeman had sued Chaplinsky for Slander. After all, the words "Racketeer" and "fascist" have specific meanings, and I don't believe Chaplinsky could have proven in a court of law that his words were justified.

But unless a person wants to pursue the Slander route, it is completely absurd, and absolutely un-Constitutional to charge a person with incitement, for simply calling another person a name, which has a specific meaning, unless one wants to prove that he was wrong in the meaning he assigned to oneself with the use of those words.

Having said all that, now let's get the rest of the story. For as we read what really happened - what really led up to the arrest of Mr. Chaplinsky - you will not believe this could have happened in America. The truth of the event will totally pull the rug out from underneath the whole notion of "incitement", or "fighting words", as it pertains to the Chaplinsky case.

Here's what really happened:

While preaching, Chaplinsky was surrounded by men who mocked Jehovah's Witnesses members' objections to saluting the flag. 

One man attempted to hit Chaplinsky in full view of the town marshal, who warned Chaplinsky that he was in danger but did not arrest his assailant. 

After the marshal left, another man produced a flagpole and attempted to impale Chaplinsky; while Chaplinsky was pinned against a car by the pole, other members of the crowd struck him. A police officer arrived and, rather than dispersing the crowd, took Chaplinsky into custody. 

En route to the station, the officer, as well as members of the crowd, insulted Chaplinsky and his religion. Chaplinsky responded by calling the town marshal, who had returned to assist the officer, a "damn fascist and a racketeer" and was arrested for the use of offensive language in public.

In other words, Mr. Chaplinsky, who was, very reasonably in fear for his life, became enraged, and started taking out his fear, anger, and humiliation on the Marshall - who would not arrest his attackers, but instead, like a coward, chose to arrest the lone person who was not committing acts of violence.

Actually, this sounds almost exactly like what is happening to Pamela Geller, Bosch Fawstin, and Robert Spencer, doesn't it?

How could such a thing happen in America? How could a man be arrested for using words, when other's are committing acts of violence against him?

How could the Supreme Court have held up his conviction on "Incitement", creating a "Fighting Words" exception to the First Amendment, when the man did not fight, or even fight back against those who did fight against him?

How could such a thing happen in American History, only to be trotted out once again, in the 21st century, by the very same kind of rogues, to be used to slander and threaten those who would truly stand for our Freedoms?

It makes you feel ashamed to live in a land where Justice is a game.

The Meaning of "Daesh" and Why Leftist Leaders Who Criticize Pamela Geller Are Completely Full of Shit

John Kerry and other Leftists insist on calling ISIS by the name of "Daesh", instead of the Islamic State or ISIS, as everyone else does?

Why is this?

Simple, because while the word "Daesh" is somehow an acronym for "Islamic State" in Arabic, the word "Daesh" also happens to mean "to crush or trample underfoot", as you do when you step on a piece of shit ...

... which is exactly what the Islamic State is.

So, here's the thing: The Lefties in our Administration, and the media groupie herd who continually fellate the President and all his underlings, they NEVER OBJECT TO THE USE OF THE WORD DAESH.

So why do they object to Pamela and her friends drawing cartoons?

How absurd?

They are total hypocrites. Absolute scum.

FINALLY, A COALITION DEAL WAS REACHED

Just 2 hours before the deadline, a deal was reached with the Jewish Home party that paves the way for a government coalition, narrow as it stands just now.

And man, did they really drag these coalition negotiations on and on and on to the bitter end. It was really unnecessary, and unfair to the electorate, though not as much as Avigdor Lieberman's own betrayal.

Now that a coalition's been formed, let's hope it'll suffice for the time being and avail this country what it needs.

THE JEWISH SIDE OF ORSON WELLES

A writer at The Times of Israel spoke about the history of Orson Welles and the possibility he may have had a Jewish father.

UH-OH: YELLEN SIGNALS THAT CURRENT STOCK VALUES ARE HIGH AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS

REUTERS:

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen on Wednesday said high equity valuations could pose potential dangers but that stability risks across the U.S. financial system remained in check. "I would highlight that equity market valuations at this point generally are quite high," Yellen said. "There are potential dangers there." Yellen's view on the run-up in stocks was an answer to questions from International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, who joined the Fed chief for the opening session of the "Finance and Society" conference here. "We’ve also seen the compression of spreads on high-yield debt, which certainly looks like a reach for yield type of behavior," Yellen said. 

U.S. stocks were trading lower following the comments, building on earlier declines triggered by weak private job data.

IT'S IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE FUELED BY THE FED AND OTHER SOVEREIGN CENTRAL BANK'S "QE'S".

AKA: A BUBBLE

WHEN IT BURSTS... NO ONE KNOWS - BUT YOU'D BETTER HEDGE YOUR POSITIONS NOW...

AND STAY TUNED...